Notes from the gun debate: Tips for submitters to Parliament

Guns are back on the agenda at Parliament. A select committee is hearing submissions from the public on the Arms Legislation Bill before it suggests tweaks to the legislation.

The Bill includes a few changes but particularly would create a register of firearms (so specific guns are linked to specific owners), and require a gun license to possess parts or ammunition.

Attending committee is always an education. You can learn about everything from raising bees to arms dealing. And also how not to present to committees. 

Sometimes almost everyone in the room seems to be taking notes on the proceedings. So, here are a few from me that arise from the first day of submissions on the arms bill. 

For quick background though, the Arms Legislation Bill is being considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee (which also looked after the previous 2019 arms bill because it has the widest cross-party membership).

The chairperson of FEC is Labour MP Deborah Russell (above, outlining an economic concept). She runs a tight ship, so on this morning each organisation got almost exactly 15 minutes. 

Note: Individual submitters often get allocated less than organisations, but committees decide their own approach.

Tactical Note: MPs already have your written submission. You’re here to talk about it, not to read it aloud.

But do talk some. If you give a very short oral submission (incredibly short at about 26 seconds in the case of the NZ Fish and Game Council - above), the rest of your time is available for questions from MPs.

This is great if you came for a solid discussion. But it is bad if you wanted to make lots of points and then avoid having to defend them; because MPs now have lots of time to question you in depth, and have more time to look for faults.

Committees tend to be very gentle with individual members of the public. 

But MPs can be pretty tough on professionals, from say lobby groups or politically involved organisations.

Also committees are the most co-operative aspect of Parliament but they are not without politics. MPs in committee are usually keen to pass the best legislation they can, even if they disagree with it. But they’re also looking for ‘wins’ for their own party, or a stick to beat their opponents with. 

National MP Andrew Bayly (above) asks Chris Cahill of the Police Association, “So, in your blame-ridden submission, and you’re pretty keen to lay some blame on certain people; do you accept any responsibility on behalf of Police for what’s gone wrong?”

Note: There are lots of capable lawyers at Parliament and they do like to brush off their mooting skills. As a result thin arguments might be revealed as such.

Here Labour MP Kiri Allan (above) dissects an aspect of the Fish and Game Council submission. 

It helps to provide evidence to support your arguments, but note that the MPs are likely to be well informed and spot straw men.

Kiri Allan (above flanked by Tamati Coffey and Mark Patterson) queried Federated Farmers’ argument that an arms register wouldn’t work. They had evidenced this with the Canadian experience but she wanted to know why they’d ignored the more analogous Australian experience, which would have demonstrated success. 

(SIDE NOTE: Photo-wise Kiri Allan had an action-packed morning, there are extra pics of MPs in action at the bottom of this article.)  

Note: You’re live online when you submit. Almost all Select Committees hearing evidence from the public are open to the public and are also live streamed. Those screens that ACT leader David Seymour (above) can see in front of him are there so MPs and submitters can see what is currently going out from the automated cameras.

(The manned cameras on tripods behind the chairperson are from TV news, who may also turn up if the topic is one with strong news value.)

Submissions that complain about how the law is an ass are sometimes useful (if specific). But what committees really appreciate is practical suggestions. For bonus points you might even suggest an alternative approach to a problematic idea you want changed. This day's submitters gave some quite detailed ideas for alternative approaches to things they didn't like and were thanked for it.

Also, statistics aren’t the only evidence (and MPs know all too well how easily they can be misused). Stories are a good tactic. Especially where they outline real life practical outcomes and implications. Walking MPs through your daily experience of the situation they are regulating can be very telling. How a law will impact real people can speak volumes and be more powerful than numbers.  

Oh, and while you talk to a committee you might wonder whether the MPs are giving you their full attention. You’re used to eye contact but a good portion of the MPs will be heads-down at their notebooks or iPads. Some may even be quietly conferring. Odds are good that they’re re-reading your written submission, checking your claims online, or consulting with each about their questions. 

Good luck!

Here's some more action shots from the morning's hearings.